[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36508-36511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12886]



[[Page 36508]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

Office of Federal Procurement Policy


Cost Accounting Standards: Staff Discussion Paper--Harmonization 
of Cost Accounting Standards 412 and 413 with the Pension Protection 
Act of 2006

AGENCY: Cost Accounting Standards Board, Office of Federal Procurement 
Policy, OMB.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Cost Accounting 
Standards Board, invites public comments concerning a Staff Discussion 
Paper on the harmonization of Cost Accounting Standards 412 and 413 
with the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

DATES: Comments must be in writing and must be received by September 4, 
2007.

ADDRESSES: Due to delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail, 
respondents are strongly encouraged to submit comments electronically 
to ensure timely receipt. Electronic comments may be submitted to 
[email protected]. Be sure to include your name, title, organization, 
and reference case ``CAS-2007-02S.'' Comments may also be submitted via 
facsimile to (202) 395-5105. If you must submit via regular mail, 
please do so at Office of Federal Procurement Policy, 725 17th Street, 
NW., Room 9013, Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Laura Auletta. Please note 
that all public comments received will be posted in their entirety, 
including any personal and/or business confidential information 
provided, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/casb.html after 
the close of the comment period.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Shipley, Project Director, Cost 
Accounting Standards Board (telephone: 410-786-6381).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

A. Regulatory Process

    Rules, Regulations and Standards issued by the Cost Accounting 
Standards Board (Board) are codified at 48 CFR Chapter 99. The Office 
of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 422(g), requires that the 
Board, prior to the establishment of any new or revised Cost Accounting 
Standard (CAS or Standard), complete a prescribed rulemaking process. 
The process generally consists of the following four steps:
    1. Consult with interested persons concerning the advantages, 
disadvantages and improvements anticipated in the pricing and 
administration of Government contracts as a result of the adoption of a 
proposed Standard.
    2. Promulgate an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    3. Promulgate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    4. Promulgate a Final Rule.
    This proposal is step one of the four-step process.

B. Background and Summary

    The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Cost Accounting 
Standards Board, is today releasing a Staff Discussion Paper (SDP) on 
the harmonization of Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) 412 and 413 with 
the Pension Protection Act (PPA) of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-280, 120 Stat. 
780). The Office of Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 422(g)(1), 
requires the Board to consult with interested persons concerning the 
advantages, disadvantages, and improvements anticipated in the pricing 
and administration of Government contracts as a result of the adoption 
of a proposed Standard prior to the promulgation of any new or revised 
CAS.
    The PPA amended the minimum funding requirements and tax-
deductibility of pension plans under the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The PPA requires the Board to revise 
Standards 412 and 413 of the CAS to harmonize with the amended ERISA 
minimum required contribution not later than January 1, 2010.
    This SDP solicits public views with respect to the Board's 
statutory requirement to ``harmonize'' CAS 412 and 413 with the PPA. 
Differences between CAS 412 and 413 and the PPA, and issues associated 
with pension harmonization have been identified by the staff. 
Respondents are welcome to identify and comment on any issues related 
to pension harmonization that they feel are important. This SDP 
reflects research accomplished to date by the staff of the Board in the 
respective subject area, and is issued by the Board in accordance with 
the requirements of 41 U.S.C. 422(g). Accordingly, this SDP does not 
necessarily represent the position of the Board.
    Basic conceptual differences exist between the CAS and the PPA that 
affect all contracts and awards subject to CAS 412 and 413. The PPA 
utilizes a settlement or liquidation approach to value pension plan 
assets and liabilities, including the use of accrued benefit 
obligations and interest rates based on current corporate bond rates. 
On the other hand, CAS utilizes the going concern approach to plan 
asset and liability valuation, i.e., assumes the company (or in this 
case the pension plan) will continue in business, and follows accrual 
accounting principles that incorporate assumptions about future years 
of employees' service and salary increases that are absent from the 
settlement approach.
    To comply with the Congressional mandate in Section 106 of the PPA 
(Section 106), the Board must complete its statutorily required 4-step 
promulgation process no later than January 1, 2010. Therefore, the 
Board has determined that this case must be limited to pension 
harmonization issues. As always, the public is invited to submit 
comments on other issues regarding contract cost accounting for pension 
cost that respondents believe the Board should consider. However, 
comments unrelated to pension harmonization will be separately 
considered by the Board in determining whether to open a separate case 
on pension costs in the future. The staff continues to be especially 
appreciative of comments and suggestions that attempt to consider the 
concerns of all parties to the contracting process.

C. Public Comments

    Interested persons are invited to participate by providing input 
with respect to harmonization of CAS 412 and 413 with the PPA. All 
comments must be in writing, and submitted as instructed in the 
ADDRESSES section.

D. Staff Discussion Paper--Harmonization of Cost Accounting Standards 
412 and 413 with the Pension Protection Act of 2006

I. Introduction

    The PPA made substantial amendments to ERISA. In particular, the 
PPA's minimum required contribution provisions, which apply to single 
employer qualified defined-benefit plans, are very different from the 
basic minimum funding requirements of ERISA that have existed since 
1974. The PPA minimum required contribution computation also differs 
from the measurement and assignment provisions of CAS 412 and 413.
    The PPA is generally effective as of January 1, 2008. In Section 
106, Congress instructs the Board to:

    ``* * * review and revise sections 412 and 413 of the Cost 
Accounting Standards * * * to harmonize the minimum required 
contribution * * * of eligible government

[[Page 36509]]

contractor plans and government reimbursable pension plan costs not 
later than January 1, 2010.''

    The PPA requires that any revisions to the CAS be called the CAS 
``Pension Harmonization Rule.'' Section 106 defines ``eligible 
government contractors'' as entities whose primary business is 
performing work under contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 
(DFARS) with such revenues exceeding $5 billion annually. While the 
Board is considering what action, if any, is needed to harmonize the 
CAS with the PPA, these ``eligible government contractors'' have been 
granted relief from the minimum required contribution and ``at risk'' 
provisions of Title I of the PPA.

II. Scope of the SDP

    The PPA addresses many aspects of the treatment of pension plans 
under ERISA. As part of Title I of the PPA, Section 106 applies to 
single employer defined benefit plans only. Therefore, this SDP 
requests public comment on what revisions to the provisions of CAS 412 
and 413 regarding single employer defined benefit pension plans, if 
any, are required to ensure pension harmonization.
    Section 106 instructs the Board to harmonize the CAS with the 
minimum required contribution for ``eligible government contractors.'' 
The Board has determined that the scope of this SDP will (1) Include 
discussions regarding all contractors with contracts, grants or awards 
subject to these Standards and (2) consider if and/or how the CAS 
should be revised to address both the PPA minimum required contribution 
and maximum tax-deductible amounts to achieve harmonization.

III. Background

    The rules governing defined-benefit pension costs for financial 
accounting, ERISA and CAS were developed for different purposes. The 
purpose of financial accounting is to report the annual pension expense 
and pension liability for use by shareholders, lenders, and other users 
of the entity's financial reports. Financial accounting recognizes the 
benefit liability presuming the pension plan will be ongoing unless 
there is evidence to the contrary.
    ERISA was passed in 1974 in response to widespread abusive 
practices that prevented retirees from receiving promised pension 
benefits. ERISA established a minimum funding requirement for benefit 
security purposes and imposed a funding limit for tax policy purposes, 
but did not establish accounting practices for pension costs. The 
minimum contribution requirement and the maximum tax-deductible 
limitation were measured on a projected benefit (going concern) basis. 
ERISA has been amended several times to implement tax policy and 
protect the benefits of plan participants.
    In its 1992 Statement of Objectives, Policies, and Concepts (57 FR 
31036, July 13, 1992), the Board stated that the primary purpose of the 
CAS is to ``achieve (1) An increased degree of uniformity in cost 
accounting practices among Government contractors in like 
circumstances, and (2) consistency in cost accounting practices in like 
circumstances by individual Government contractors over periods of 
time.'' The Board addresses the recognition of pension costs in CAS 412 
and 413. CAS 412 provides ``guidance for determining and measuring the 
components of pension cost'' and ``the basis on which pension costs 
shall be assigned to cost accounting periods.'' CAS 413 provides 
``guidance for adjusting pension cost by measuring actuarial gains and 
losses and assigning such gains and losses to cost accounting 
periods.'' CAS 413 also provides ``the bases on which pension cost 
shall be allocated to segments of an organization.''
    The original CAS 412 and 413 were revised in 1995 in part to 
address a conflict introduced by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA 86) 
and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA 87). TRA 86 
imposed an excise tax on contributions that exceeded the tax-deductible 
limit. OBRA 87 lowered the ERISA funding limitations which put 
contractors in a ``catch-22'' situation. Contractors were faced with 
the dilemma of either funding the full pension cost determined under 
CAS while incurring a substantial excise tax which was not an allowable 
cost for Government contracting purposes, or limiting the pension 
contribution and losing current and future recognition of the costs 
which would have otherwise been measured and assigned as pension costs 
on Government contracts. On March 30, 1995, CAS 412 and 413 were 
amended and removed the conflict by limiting the assignable pension 
costs to a corridor measured by a zero dollar floor and ERISA's maximum 
contribution amounts. The measurement and assignment of pension cost 
under CAS 412 and 413 continued to be based on traditional accrual 
accounting and long-term assumptions, which matches activities to the 
cost of the long-term liability for pensions, and required funding to 
substantiate the compellable amount. The preamble to the 1995 
amendments to CAS 412 and 413 (60 FR 16534, March 30, 1995) reiterated 
the relationship between the Standards and ERISA:
    This final rule has not adopted ERISA as an accounting method, but 
has modified accrual accounting to fit within the confines of 
practicable funding.

IV. ERISA Contributions vs. CAS Cost

    ERISA, as amended by OBRA 87, obligates plan sponsors, including 
Government contractors, to make minimum pension contributions towards 
their unfunded accrued benefit liabilities, which are measured on a 
settlement basis. However, in some cases Government contractors are not 
reimbursed immediately for the higher cash outlays in their government 
contract costs and prices. Instead, the extra contribution is accounted 
for as a prepayment credit which is deferred and reimbursed in later 
years. As a result, many contractors have expressed serious concerns 
about the detrimental impact on their current cash flow. The PPA may 
further exacerbate this cash flow issue by increasing the differences 
between required ERISA funding and the measurable and assignable cost 
under CAS.

V. Relationship of CAS 412 and 413 to ERISA and ``Harmonization''

    Congress instructed the Board to ``harmonize'' the CAS with the 
minimum required contribution. However, neither the Act nor the Joint 
Committee on Taxation report on the PPA (Technical Explanation of H.R. 
4, the ``Pension Protection Act of 2006,'' as passed by the House on 
July 28, 2006, and as considered by the Senate on August 3, 2006, JCX-
38-06, August 3, 2006) give any guidance or insight as to Congress' 
meaning of the word ``harmonize.'' Thus, the Board has the 
responsibility of interpreting the term ``harmonization,'' and in fact, 
under the OFPP Act, the Board has the exclusive authority to 
promulgate, amend, and interpret the Cost Accounting Standards.
    This leads to the question of what it means to harmonize the two 
sets of rules.

VI. Questions

    This SDP seeks public input on possible revisions to CAS 412 and/or 
413 to ``harmonize'' the CAS and the PPA. Therefore, the Board requests 
input from interested parties on the following areas of concern. The 
Board

[[Page 36510]]

welcomes comments on any other concerns, issues or input related to 
harmonization of the CAS with the PPA.
    1. Scope. Section 106 of the PPA instructs the Board to harmonize 
the CAS with the minimum required contribution for ``eligible 
government contractors.'' Contracts of ``eligible government 
contractors'' are a small subset of contracts subject to CAS 412 and 
413, which include all cost-based contracts subject to full CAS-
Coverage, contracts subject to Paragraph 31.205-6(j) of the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation, and recipients of financial assistance who have 
elected to use CAS 412 and 413 under OMB Circular A-87.
    Question 1. Should the Board apply any revisions to all cost-based 
contracts and other Federal awards that are subject to full CAS 
coverage, or only to ``eligible government contractors'' as defined in 
Section 106?
    2. General Purpose. CAS 413.50(c)(12) currently provides for an 
adjustment of previously determined pension cost in the event of a 
segment closing, a plan termination, or a curtailment of benefits. The 
adjustment is computed as the difference between the market value of 
the assets and the actuarial accrued liability for the segment. If 
there is a pension plan termination, the actuarial accrued benefit is 
measured as the amount paid to irrevocably settle all benefit 
obligations or paid to the PBGC. In this way, it could be argued that 
CAS 413-50(c)(12) already satisfies the purpose of the PPA to protect 
employee retirement security or to ensure the PBGC solvency, at least 
for the contractor's segments that perform Government contracts. This 
leads to the following question:
    Question 2. Does the current CAS 412 and 413 substantially meet the 
Congressional intent of the PPA to protect retirement security, to 
strengthen funding and ensure PBGC solvency?
    3. Harmonization. The PPA requires that the Board review and revise 
CAS 412 and 413 to harmonize with the minimum required contribution, 
but recognizing that the Board has exclusive authority concerning 
contract cost accounting, leaves the determination of what constitutes 
``harmonization'' to the Board's deliberation and conclusion. The CAS 
pension harmonization rule could fall anywhere within the continuum 
from avoidance of conflict with ERISA to full adoption of the 
measurement and assignment concepts of the minimum required 
contribution. The rule might be accomplished by changing the current 
provisions of CAS 412 and 413, or possibly adding an adjustment 
mechanism to ensure differences between the minimum required 
contribution and the contract cost are reconciled within a reasonable 
period of time. There might be other means by which harmonization could 
be achieved.
    Another issue is whether harmonization should examine the minimum 
required contribution with or without application of the plan's credit 
(carryover and prefunding) balances. The existence and application of 
credit balances are treated differently for eight separate PPA funding 
tests, such as ``at-risk'' status, benefit restrictions, and the 
variable PBGC premium. Separate from their concerns with contract 
costing, contractors will have to make complex decisions about whether 
to retain or waive (permanently forego) credit balances. If all or some 
of the credit balance is retained, the contractor must make decisions 
as to the amount of the credit balance to apply to reduce the minimum 
funding requirement and in which accounting period to apply the 
reduction.
    Question 3. Should CAS harmonization be focused only on the 
relationship of the PPA minimum required contribution and the contract 
cost determined in accordance with CAS 412 and 413?
    (a) Do the measurement and assignment provisions of the current CAS 
412 and 413 result in a contractor incurring a penalty under ERISA in 
order to receive full reimbursement of CAS computed pension costs under 
Government contracts?
    (b) To what extent, if any, should the Board revise CAS 412 and 413 
to harmonize with the contribution range defined by the minimum 
required contribution and the tax-deductible maximum contribution?
    (c) To what extent, if any, should ERISA credit balances (carryover 
and prefunding balances) be considered in revising CAS 412 and 413?
    (d) To what extent, if any, should revisions to CAS be based on the 
measurement and assignment methods of the PPA?
    (i) To what extent, if any, should the Board revise the CAS based 
on rules established to implement tax policy?
    (ii) To what extent, if any, should the Board consider concerns 
with the solvency of either the pension plan, or the PBGC?
    4. Cost Measurement. CAS measures the accrued pension liability and 
pension cost on the ``going concern'' basis of accounting that assumes 
the contractor and pension plan will continue lacking evidence to the 
contrary. Conversely, PPA measurements are made on liquidation or 
settlement cost basis.
    Question 4. (a) Accounting Basis. For Government contract costing 
purposes, should the Board (i) Retain the current ``going concern'' 
basis for the measurement and assignment of the contract cost for the 
period, or (ii) revise CAS 412 and 413 to measure and assign the period 
cost on the liquidation or settlement cost basis of accounting?
    (b) Actuarial Assumptions. For contract cost measurement, should 
the Board (i) Continue to utilize the current CAS requirements which 
incorporate the contractor's long-term best estimates of anticipated 
experience under the plan, or (ii) revise the CAS to include the PPA 
minimum required contribution criteria, which include interest rates 
based on current corporate bond yields, no recognition of future period 
salary growth, and use of a mortality table determined by the Secretary 
of the Treasury?
    (c) Specific Assumptions. Please comment on the following specific 
assumptions:
    (i) Interest Rate: (1) For measuring the pension obligation, what 
basis for setting interest rate assumptions would best achieve 
uniformity and/or the matching of costs to benefits earned over the 
working career of plan participants? (2) To what extent, if any, should 
the interest rate assumption reflect the contractor's investment policy 
and the investment mix of the pension fund?
    (ii) Salary Increases: For measuring the pension obligation, should 
the CAS exclude, permit or require recognition of future period salary 
increases?
    (iii) Mortality: For measuring the pension obligation, should the 
CAS exclude, permit, or require use of a (1) Standardized mortality 
table, (2) company-specific mortality table, or (3) mortality table 
that reflects plan-specific or segment-specific experience?
    (d) Period Assignment (Amortization). For contract cost 
measurement, should the Board (i) Retain the current amortization 
provisions allowing amortization over 10 to 30 years (15 years for 
experience gains and losses), (ii) expand the range to 7 to 30 years 
for all sources including experience gains and losses, (iii) adopt a 
fixed 7 year period consistent with the PPA minimum required 
contribution computation, or (iv) adopt some other amortization 
provision?
    (e) Asset Valuation. (i) For contract cost measurement, should the 
Board restrict the corridor of acceptable actuarial asset values to the 
range specified in the PPA (90% to 110% of the market value)?

[[Page 36511]]

    (ii) For contract cost measurement, should the Board adopt the 
PPA's two year averaging period for asset smoothing?
    5. At Risk Plans. For plans with a low level of funding, the PPA 
imposes certain provisions that may require higher ``at risk'' minimum 
required contributions than is required for plans that do not have this 
low level of funding. The ``at-risk'' provisions are intended to more 
rapidly fund plans that are likely to fail due to underfunding and be 
taken over by the PBGC.
    Question 5. To what extent, if any, should the Board revise the CAS 
to include special funding rules for ``at risk'' plans?
    6. Cash Flow Considerations. The PPA may create a disincentive for 
government contractors to continue their defined benefit plans if the 
pattern of cash outlays for pension contributions are not matched by 
the reimbursements for pension costs under Government contracts. The 
mismatching of cash flows might occur for two distinct reasons: (i) The 
pension costs assigned to a particular cost accounting period in 
accordance with CAS may be substantially less than the minimum 
contributions required by ERISA, or (ii) incurred pension costs may 
dramatically exceed previously forecast costs due to plans emerging 
from full funding and/or experiencing unexpected adverse asset or 
demographic results.
    Question 6. (a) To what extent, if any, should the measurement and 
assignment provisions of CAS 412 and 413 be revised to address 
contractor cash flow issues?
    (b) To what extent, if any, do the current prepayment provisions 
mitigate contractor cash flow concerns?
    (c) To what extent, if any, should the prepayment credit provision 
be revised to address the issue of potential negative cash flow?
    7. Volatility in Contract Cost Projections. The second potential 
source of cash flow mismatch is attributable not to the basic 
measurement and assignment provisions of the Standards, but to the 
volatility of contract costs for pensions and contribution requirements 
(see Question 5 above). The ``all or nothing'' effects of the CAS 412 
assignable cost limitation and the ceiling on assigned cost for income 
tax purposes could significantly impact the volatility of contract cost 
forecasts.
    Question 7. (a)(i) To what extent, if any, would adoption of some 
or all of the PPA provisions impact the volatility of cost projections? 
(ii) Are there ways to mitigate this impact? Please explain.
    (b) To what extent, if any, should the CAS assignable cost 
limitation be revised as part of the efforts to harmonize the CAS with 
the PPA?
    (c) To what extent, if any, should the CAS be revised to address 
negative pension costs in the context of cost volatility?
    8. Segment Closings, Plan Terminations, and Benefit Curtailments. 
Under the PPA, if a plan is determined to be severely ``at-risk,'' the 
further accrual of benefits is prohibited. Under CAS 413, such a 
cessation of accrual would be a curtailment of benefits. Currently, if 
the contractor retains pension assets and liabilities subsequent to the 
curtailment of benefits, CAS 413-50(c)(12) requires that the actuarial 
liability be measured using the assumptions that have historically been 
used to fund the plan. If the liability is transferred to an insurance 
company or the PBGC, the insurance premium or PBGC valuation of the 
liability determines the segment closing liability. The cost of the 
insurance premium and the liability assumed by the PBGC may exceed the 
PPA target liability and the actuarial liability measured by CAS 413-
50(c)(12) because of the addition of the ``risk premium'' against 
adverse experience assessed by insurers.
    Question 8. (a) To what extent, if any, would adoption of some or 
all of the PPA provisions affect the measurement of a segment closing 
adjustment in accordance with CAS 413.50(c)(12)?
    (b) To what extent, if any, should the CAS 413 criteria for a 
curtailment of benefits be modified to address the PPA mandatory 
cessation of benefit accruals for an ``at risk'' plan?
    9. Technical Issues. The PPA changes the ERISA provisions for (a) 
Treatment of credit (carryover and prefunding) balances (analogous to 
``prepayment credits'' under the CAS), (b) treatment of contributions 
made after the end of the plan year, and (c) recognition of 
collectively bargained benefits. CAS 412 requires prepayment credits to 
be adjusted at the valuation rate of interest (the CAS valuation rate) 
while the PPA requires credit balances to be adjusted based on the 
pension fund's actual rate of ``return on plan assets.'' CAS 412 and 
413 do not contain specific language on the treatment of contributions 
made after the end of the plan year, while the PPA requires that such 
contributions to be discounted at the PPA ``effective interest rate.'' 
CAS 412 recognizes only the benefits specified in existing collective 
bargaining agreements, while the PPA recognizes anticipated changes in 
benefits based on established patterns.
    Question 9. (a) Prepayment Credits. Should prepayment credits be 
adjusted based on the CAS valuation rate or the PPA requirement to use 
the pension fund's actual ``return on plan assets'' for the period?
    (b) Contributions Made After End of Plan Year. Should the interest 
adjustment for contributions made after the end of the plan year be 
computed as if the deposit was made on the last day of the plan year or 
on the actual deposit as now required by the PPA?
    (c) Collectively Bargained Benefits. (i) To what extent, if any, 
should the CAS be revised to address the PPA provision that allows the 
recognition of established patterns of collectively bargained benefits?
    (ii) Are there criteria that should be considered in determining 
what constitutes an established pattern of such changes?
    10. Available Data on Costs under CAS vs. PPA. To fully examine the 
relationship of the measurement and assignment of contract costs for 
pensions, the minimum required contribution, and the maximum tax-
deductible contribution, the Board believes that data considering many 
different scenarios would be very informative and enhance its 
deliberations.
    Question 10. The Board would be very interested in obtaining the 
results of any studies or surveys that examine the pension cost 
determined in accordance with the CAS and the PPA minimum required 
contributions and maximum tax-deductible contribution.
    11. Records and Visibility. Beginning in 2008, actuarial valuation 
reports prepared for ERISA and financial accounting purposes will no 
longer be required to include the accrued actuarial liability and 
normal cost measured under cost methods and assumptions that comply 
with the provisions of CAS 412 and 413. Actuaries and valuation 
software could still produce such values, and such valuation results 
would still be subject to the Actuarial Standards of Practice.
    Question 11. In light of the changes to the PPA, should the Board 
consider including specific requirements in CAS 412 and 413 regarding 
the records required to support the contractor's proposed and/or 
claimed pension cost?

Paul A. Denett,
Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
[FR Doc. E7-12886 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P